The Johnson Ammendment

Mott the Hoople

Mott the Hoople

Sweet Jane
President Trump signed an EO (I wonder why Republicans are not howling that he's playing King now? I thought only those who want to be King issued EO's) easing restrictions to the Johnson amendment.

I find this alarming for number of reasons.

#1. It creates a tremendous loophole for unreported financial contributions to political candidates which are tax deductible. This creates an end around on which campaign contributions can be made in violation of relevant campaign financing laws.
#2. It politicizes religion.
#3. It makes religious institutions free riders on the political process as tax free non profits.
#4. The Johnson amendment does not, contrary to some arguments, free speech or the free exercise of religion.

I think many in the Clergy support the Johnson amendment as the separation of Church and State creates an environment where religion and religious worship prospers from the lack of political entaglements.

I think most serious people will find this a very short sighted EO. Including the majority of religious leaders.
 
I just love the irony that the Johnson Amendment takes its name from a complete dick.

But, yeah, live by the EO, and die by the EO. Douchebag Donald's presidential inspiration (also a complete dick) was notorious for ignoring the law, and conducting business as he saw fit.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
President Trump signed an EO (I wonder why Republicans are not howling that he's playing King now? I thought only those who want to be King issued EO's) easing restrictions to the Johnson amendment.

I find this alarming for number of reasons.

#1. It creates a tremendous loophole for unreported financial contributions to political candidates which are tax deductible. This creates an end around on which campaign contributions can be made in violation of relevant campaign financing laws.
#2. It politicizes religion.
#3. It makes religious institutions free riders on the political process as tax free non profits.
#4. The Johnson amendment does not, contrary to some arguments, free speech or the free exercise of religion.

I think many in the Clergy support the Johnson amendment as the separation of Church and State creates an environment where religion and religious worship prospers from the lack of political entaglements.

I think most serious people will find this a very short sighted EO. Including the majority of religious leaders.
Click to expand...
Trumps EO is trying to undo an injustice....

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=W05

Religious groups already do contribute to political groups....and have
for quite a few years...Democrats getting the bulk of that money.

If thats you main worry, then the law addressing that needs to be
enforced...seems to me the liberals would have a bitch about that.

Other than that, religious groups have every right under the first
amendment to say anything to want from the pulpit or anywhere else...
free speech is for everyone.......

This 'separation' of church and state bullshit is gone too far as it is...
The First Amendment is a restriction on the gov. entering the realm of religion...not visa versa.....
 
In 2014, over 1600 pastors made election speeches and sent tapes of them to the IRS more or less daring them to do something about it. The IRS response was underwhelming enough to spark a lawsuit by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which they withdrew after the IRS somehow convinced FFRF that it would not remain supine on the issue.
 
Trump's religious freedom order doesn't change law on political activity
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...der-could-unleash-political-money/101289500/#

President Trump's executive order on religious freedom maintains the long-established restrictions on political activity by churches, despite a promise in February to "totally destroy" the law known as the Johnson Amendment.

Promising that the order would "prevent the Johnson Amendment from interfering with your First Amendment rights," Trump signed the executive order in a grand Rose Garden ceremony, where he was surrounded by activists, faith leaders and nuns from the Little Sisters of the Poor — all serenaded by a string quartet.

But when the White House released the text of the executive order two hours later, it largely maintained the status quo.

"The (executive order) does not really resolve anything with respect to the Johnson Amendment," said Lloyd Mayer, who teaches nonprofit and election law at Notre Dame law school. "The Johnson Amendment is still law."

Liberal groups preparing to sue over the order said there was no need. The American Civil Liberties Union called the order "an elaborate photo-op with no discernible policy outcome." Public Citizen said it was "a sham because what it actually does is instruct the IRS to enforce the law as written."

And even conservative groups couldn't hide their disappointment.

"Though we appreciate the spirit of today’s gesture, vague instructions to federal agencies simply leaves them wiggle room to ignore that gesture, regardless of the spirit in which it was intended," said a statement from Michael Farris, president of Alliance Defending Freedom.

He said he still hopes that Trump would fulfill his campaign promise. "Regrettably, this executive order leaves that promise as yet unfulfilled," he said.

Since it was first adopted in 1954, the Johnson Amendment prohibits charities and churches from "directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office." Groups that violate the amendment could be faced with revocation of their tax-exempt status.

In stilted legalese, Trump's order says the IRS should not take action against churches that speak out on moral or political issues "where speech of similar character has, consistent with law, not ordinarily been treated as" campaign speech. In other words, the time-tested standard applies: Churches can speak out on political issues as long as they don't endorse or oppose a specific candidate.

To be safe, Trump also directed that the order be followed "to the extent permitted by law."
 
NOVA said:
Trumps EO is trying to undo an injustice....

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=W05

Religious groups already do contribute to political groups....and have
for quite a few years...Democrats getting the bulk of that money.

If thats you main worry, then the law addressing that needs to be
enforced...seems to me the liberals would have a bitch about that.

Other than that, religious groups have every right under the first
amendment to say anything to want from the pulpit or anywhere else...
free speech is for everyone.......

This 'separation' of church and state bullshit is gone too far as it is...
The First Amendment is a restriction on the gov. entering the realm of religion...not visa versa.....
Click to expand...

They do certainly have First Amendment rights. They also enjoy a special status of being tax free if they refrain from political speech from the pulpit. Great. Exercise that political speech all you want. Bye bye tax exemptions. Welcome to the real world.
 
for 16 years, split in to two sections of 8 years each, democrats LOVED EOs, not giving a fuck that they could be used by the opposing party once it's in power. But whining about abuse of power is so much easier than standing firm against it in all ways.
 
It will be thrown out of court. The Johnson amendment is the law of the land, passed by congress. He does not have legislative authority, and cannot repeal it by fiat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top